Authoritarian, Democratic, and Laissez-Faire Leadership

This article introduces authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles. These three styles of leadership comprise the classical styles of leadership seen in traditional groups and organizations. The sociology of authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership is explored in four parts: an overview of the basic principles of the authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles; a discussion of the sociology of group and organizational leadership; a review of the ways in which social scientists apply authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire theories of leadership to research setting and questions; and an exploration of the issues associated with choosing a particular leadership style. Understanding the role that authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles play in groups is vital background for all those interested in the sociology of social interaction in groups and organizations.

Keywords: Authoritarian Leadership; Democratic Leadership; Followers; Groups; Laissez-Faire Leadership; Organizations

Social Interaction in Groups & Organizations > Authoritarian, Democratic, & Laissez-Faire Leadership

Overview

Social scientists classify distinct types or styles of leadership. Different leadership styles or behaviors have different effects on the dynamics of groups and organizations. There are three classical leadership styles or behaviors: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership. These three leadership styles vary in multiple ways, including the functions of leadership, the roles of followers, the settings most appropriate for each leadership style, and the leadership styles' relationship to authority and control. For instance, authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership vary in the degree of control that they give their followers. Authoritarian leaders give their followers little to no control of their environment. Democratic leaders give their followers partial control over their tasks and decision-making process. Laissez-faire leaders give their followers almost total control over their environments.

Kurt Lewin (1890–1947) was the pioneering social psychologist credited with defining and differentiating between the three classical leadership styles or behaviors. Lewin, considered by many to be the founder of social psychology, made significant contributions to leadership studies, organizational theory, and management theory. Based on extensive leadership and group dynamics experiments, Lewin developed the concept of leadership climates. Lewin characterized leadership climates as authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire (Lewin et al, 1939). Critics of Lewin argue that he never developed his classical leadership model beyond a rough conceptual sketch.

This article introduces authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles. These three styles of leadership comprise the classical styles of leadership seen in traditional groups and organizations. The sociology of authoritarian, democratic and laissez-faire leadership is explored in four parts:

• An overview of the basic principles of the authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles;
• A discussion of the sociology of group and organizational leadership;
• A review of the ways in which social scientists apply authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire theories of leadership to research setting and questions; and
• An exploration of the issues associated with choosing a particular leadership style.

Understanding the role that authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles play in groups is vital background for all those interested in the sociology of social interaction in groups and organizations.

Leadership Types: Authoritarian, Democratic, & Laissez-Faire

Lewin's three leadership styles or behaviors, described below, influence the leader-follower relationship, group success, group risk-taking, group problem-solving strategies, group morale, and group relations.

Authoritarian Leadership

Authoritarian leaders, also referred to as autocratic leaders, are characterized as domineering. Authoritarian leaders make policies and decide appropriate division of labor from afar. They tend to be distant and aloof from their group. Authoritarian leadership is gained through punishment, threat, demands, orders, rules, and regulations. The functions of authoritarian leadership include unilateral rule-making, task-assignment, and problem-solving, while the roles of authoritarian followers include adhering to the leader's instructions without question or comment. Authoritarian leadership is appropriate in settings with a constant stream of new employees, limited decision-making time or resources, and the need for large-scale coordination with other groups and organizations. Authoritarian leadership is not suited to environments in which members desire to share their opinions and participate in decision-making processes. Critics of authoritarian leadership argue that the leadership style leads to high member dissatisfaction, turn-over, and absenteeism.

Democratic Leadership

Democratic leaders are characterized by collective decision-making, camaraderie, active member or follower involvement, fair praise, and restrained criticism; they facilitate collective decision-making. Democratic leaders offer their followers choices and support. Democratic leadership, also referred to as participative leadership, reflects democratic principles and processes including inclusiveness, self-determination, and equal participation. That said, democratic leaders should not be confused with those who hold elected positions of power. Democratic leaders often lack formal position and power. For example, Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948), an Indian peace activist and leader, was a democratic leader who lacked a formal position of power.

Democratic leadership gains its authority through accountability, active participation, cooperation, and delegation of tasks and responsibilities. The functions of democratic leadership include distributing responsibility within the group or organization, empowering members, and facilitating group deliberations. The roles of democratic followers include willingness to take personal responsibility for the group or organization, willingness to be held accountable for their actions and decisions, willingness to maintain their group's autonomy and freedom, willingness to take on the role of leader as needed or appropriate, and willingness to work with their leaders. Democratic leadership is appropriate in particular settings such as an international association, a democratic nation, a worker-owner corporation, a public university, a close-knit neighborhood, or a cooperative social group or organization. Democratic leadership is not useful or required in groups and organizations with clearly defined and unchanging guidelines, roles, and practices.

Ultimately, the role of a democratic leader is ideally shared in a group or organization. Democratic leadership is distributed and changing. Within a democratic leadership climate or environment, there will be multiple leaders and every member will be a leader at some point during their membership in the group.

Laissez-Faire Leadership

Laissez-faire leaders are characterized as uninvolved with their followers and members; in fact, laissez-faire leadership is an absence of leadership style. Leaders of this style make no policies or group-related decisions. Instead, group members are responsible for all goals, decisions, and problem-solving. Laissez-faire leaders have very little to no authority within their group organization. The functions of laissez-faire leadership include trusting their members or followers to make appropriate decisions and bringing in highly trained and reliable members into the group or organization. The roles of laissez-faire followers include self-monitoring, problem-solving, and producing successful end products. Laissez-faire leaders are most successful in environments with highly trained and self-directed followers. Laissez-faire leadership is appropriate in particular settings, such as science laboratories or established companies with long-term employees. Laissez-faire leadership is not suited to environments in which the members require feedback, direction, oversight, flexibility, or praise.

Bass's Transformational, Transactional, & Laissez-Faire Leadership Model

In contemporary sociological thought and practice, laissez-faire leadership is one part of the model of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership that was developed by Bernard M. Bass (1925–2007) in 1985. Bass based his model on the work of social scientist James MacGregor Burns (1918–2014) who originated the concepts of transactional and transforming leadership in the 1970s. Burns argued that every leadership process may be classified as transactional, transforming, or laissez-faire leadership. In Bass's model, transactional leadership refers to a leadership style in which the leader exchanges rewards in exchange for subordinate effort. Transformational leadership refers to a leadership style in which the leader encourages his or her subordinates to achieve increasingly higher levels of performance for the sake of the organization. Laissez-faire leadership refers to a type of non-leadership in which leaders make no effort to meet subordinate needs and do not react to and may withdraw from subordinate deviance.

Bass developed his model of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership to make up for the problems he perceived to be inherent in traditional leadership theories such as Lewin's authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership model. Bass believed that traditional leadership theories could not explain the motivation that workers may feel when they are part of an effective organization. In addition, critics of traditional or classical theories of leadership—such as Lewin's authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership model—have argued that early theories are more closely related to management rather than leadership practices.

Ultimately, leadership styles within groups and organizations vary significantly and influence the morale and morals of their leaders. In addition to authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership, sociologists study other types of leadership such as charismatic leadership, situational leadership, quiet leadership, and servant leadership to discover their effects on groups and organizations. Each of these different leadership types and styles has a different effect on their groups and organizations.

Sociology of Group & Organizational Leadership

Leadership refers to the process by which one individual works to influence other group members to work toward the achievement of group goals (Greenberg & Baron, 1997). Sociologists study leadership in small group settings, formal organizations, and social movements.

• Small group leadership is called micro leadership.
• Leadership of large formal organizations is called macro leadership.
• Leadership of social movements is called meta-leadership.

Social interaction in groups and organizations is affected by the type and character of leadership found in the group or organization. Leaders in organizations and groups may or may not be officially chosen or appointed, and may be formal or informal.

• Formal leadership refers to the leadership role that comes from holding a ranked position in management.
• Informal leadership, also called non-sanctioned leadership, refers to the ability to influence that exists outside the formal organizational structure.

Interest in organizational leadership began as a result of twentieth-century concern for social relations, motivation, and employee productivity. Sociologists began to study human social interaction and relations to explain motivation. The field of organizational behavior, an interdisciplinary field including sociology, psychology, and business, sought to understand how leaders motivate their followers. The study of group and organizational leadership has changed significantly over the last century. In the 1930s, trait theories of leadership predominated while in the 1950s, behavior theories of leadership were predominant, and in the 1970s, the "new leadership" perspective emerged.

Trait Theories of Leadership

Trait theories of leadership argue that leaders have distinct qualities and characteristics that influence their leadership style. Trait theories of leadership identify the personality, social, physical, and intellectual traits that characterize leaders and separate leaders from non-leaders. In the first decade of the twentieth century, research in organizational leadership was driven by the belief that the traits of effective leaders could be identified, defined, and measured. Research on leadership traits searched for universal personality traits that leaders possessed and the traits that were missing from non-leaders. The trait theories of leadership are built upon the great man or great person theory. The great person theory refers to the idea that the fate of societies, as well as groups and organizations, is in the hands of powerful individuals who became powerful because of their intellect and strong personality. Despite significant research efforts studying individual leaders, no universal traits were discovered. Research on trait theories of leadership was largely abandoned in the late 1940s.

Behavior Theories of Leadership

The behavioral approach to leadership identifies, defines, and generalizes how the behavior of effective leaders differs from less effective leaders or followers. In the 1950s, behavioral studies of group and organizational behavior attempted to identify the consistent patterns between leadership styles and work performance. Behavioral studies of organizational behavior, as an exclusive focus, were largely abandoned in the 1960s as they lacked an explanation for behavioral variation across different contexts and settings. Behavioral studies could not account for situational factors that promoted leadership success or failure. Behavioral studies could not explain the significance and effect of context on group and organizational leadership.

"New Leadership" Theory

The new leadership perspective, characterized by transformational and transactional leadership, is concerned with leadership that is charismatic, visionary, and transformational. The theory of transformational and transactional leadership emerged in the 1970s in response to the traditional theories of leadership, namely trait, behavior, and contingency theories, which dominated leadership studies through much of the twentieth century. In 1978, James MacGregor Burns developed the concepts of transactional and transforming leadership. Burns's work broadened the concept of leader and developed a way to identify and recognize exceptional leadership. In 1985, Bernard Bass further developed these concepts into his transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire model of leadership. Both Burns and Bass argued that transactional and transforming or transformational leadership represent distinct types of leadership, rather than opposites. Bass developed his model to make up for the problems he perceived to be inherent in traditional leadership theories. Bass believed that traditional leadership theories could not explain the motivation that workers may feel when they are part of an effective organization. In addition, critics of traditional theories of leadership have argued that early theories are more closely related to management rather than leadership practices. The identification of the transforming leader changed previously held beliefs about the character and limits of leadership behavior and leader-follower relationships.

Applications

The Effects of Leadership Style

Social scientists apply the authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire theories of leadership to a wide range of settings and contexts. Leadership research is conducted both in real-world and experimental settings and environments. Social scientists look to see the effect that a particular leadership style has on a group or organization. For instance, researchers have studied the relationship between leadership style and follower satisfaction. Studies suggest that individuals and groups tend to be more satisfied following democratic as opposed to autocratic leaders.

Group Behavior

Social scientists explore how leadership styles or traits affect group behavior. For example, Paul Wehman and Melvin Goldstein conducted an experiment to document the effects that leadership styles or traits had on group risk-taking tendencies. The researchers manipulated leadership styles, including laissez-faire leadership, no designated leadership, democratic leadership, and authoritarian leadership, as a means of producing real-world leader-follower experiences. Groups led by authoritarian and democratic leaders were significantly less likely to take risks than those groups led by laissez-faire leadership or no designated leadership. Wehman and Goldstein's research showed that individuals in groups with no leadership or laissez-faire leadership demonstrate more of a willingness to take risks.

Leadership Styles & Professions

Social scientists have studied the leadership style of different jobs and professions. For example, Alexander Ardichvili studied the leadership styles of Russian entrepreneurs and managers by conducting survey research with small business owners and big business managers. The survey data showed significant differences between the leadership styles of entrepreneurs and managers. Russian managers tend to be laissez-faire leaders. Russian entrepreneurs tend to be charismatic or inspirational leaders. Ardichvili concluded that Russian managers and entrepreneurs are significantly different types of leaders and, as a result, should not receive the same leadership training and guidance.

Issues

Leadership styles do not exist in isolation. Leaders must choose their leadership style partly based on the characteristics of their followers and group or organizational environment. When leaders adhere to their leadership styles without regard to their followers or group environment, resentment or failure may occur. This section describes the ways in which followers and group environment influence leadership style.

Followers

Not only does leadership style affect groups and organizations, but the character and number of followers does as well. Followers are individuals willing to agree with the instructions and objectives of their leader and are employees or group members who are not in leadership roles. Followers tend to exhibit compliance or a willingness to follow orders. Effective followers exhibit many of the same traits required of effective leaders such as cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence, personal motivation, and communication skills. In addition, effective followers share four essential qualities: self-management, commitment, competence, and courage.

• Self-management refers to the ability to work well without close supervision.
• Commitment refers to caring strongly for something beyond oneself, such as an organization, cause, or value.
• Competence refers to mastering skills useful to the larger group or organization.
• Courage refers to the act of independent thinkers defending their beliefs.

In the final analysis, leadership style and follower characteristics determine the culture and success of a group or organization.

Influence of Situational Context

While leadership style and follower characteristics affect the success of a leader-follower relationship, so does the group context or situation. Situational or contingent leadership theories of leadership are based on the idea that the most effective style of leadership will always be determined by the factors of setting and membership. The most common situational or contingency theories of organizational leadership include the Fiedler contingency model, the situational leadership model, the normative decision model, and the path-goal theory.

The Fiedler contingency model, developed by psychologist Fred Fiedler (1922–2017), argues that group performance is a result of the match between the leader's interaction style and the degree to which the situation or context gives control to the leader.

The situational leadership model explains how to match leadership style to the readiness of group members to follow directions. Readiness refers to the degree to which an individual group member possesses the ability or inclination to accomplish a task established by the leader.

The normative decision model defines leadership as a decision-making process in which the leaders examine key factors to determine which decision-making style will be the most effective.

The path-goal theory of leadership focuses on what a leader must do to achieve high morale and high productivity in a certain situation. This model presents different leadership styles that may be used in different situations: Directive leadership, supportive leadership, participative leadership, and achievement-oriented leadership (Saha, 1979).

Conclusion

In the final analysis, leadership styles vary based on the traits of the leaders, the needs and abilities of the followers, and the context or situation. This article introduced three of the most common leadership styles or traits: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. These three styles of leadership comprise the classical styles of leadership seen in traditional groups and organizations. The sociology of authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership is explored in four parts: an overview of the basic principles of the authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles; a discussion of the sociology of group and organizational leadership; a review of the ways in which social scientists apply authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire theories of leadership to research setting and questions; and an exploration of the issues associated with choosing a particular leadership style. Understanding the role that authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles play in groups is vital knowledge for anyone interested in the sociology of social interaction in groups and organizations.

Terms & Concepts

Authoritarian Leadership: A type of leadership style in which domineering leaders give their followers little to no control of their environment.

Democratic Leadership: A type of leadership style in which leaders give their followers partial control over their tasks and decision-making processes.

Followers: The people willing to agree with the instructions and objectives of their leader.

Formal Leadership: The leadership role that comes from holding a ranked position in management.

Groups: Any number of people who interact with each other and share common expectations about each other's behavior.

Informal Leadership: The ability to influence that exists outside the formal organizational structure.

Laissez-Faire Leadership: A type of non-leadership in which leaders make no effort to meet subordinate needs and do not react to and may withdraw from subordinate deviance.

Leadership: The process by which one individual works to influence other group members to work toward the achievement of group goals.

Organizations: Social arrangements, separated from society as a whole, which pursue collective goals and control their own performance.

Sociology: The scientific study of human social behavior, human association, and the results of social activities.

Transactional Leadership: A leadership style in which the leader exchanges rewards in exchange for subordinate effort.

Transformational Leadership: A leadership style in which the leader encourages his or her subordinates to achieve increasingly higher levels of performance for the sake of the organization.

Bibliography

Ardichvili, A. (2001). Leadership styles of Russian entrepreneurs and managers. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 6, 169-187.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410. Retrieved August 14, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text:

Biggs, D. A., Huneryager, S. G., & Delaney, J. J. (1966). Leadership Behavior: Interpersonal Needs and Effective Supervisory Training. Personnel Psychology, 19(3), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1966.tb00307.x. Retrieved August 14, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text:

Bridbord, K., & DeLucia-Waack, J. (2011). Personality, Leadership Style, and Theoretical Orientation as Predictors of Group Co-Leadership Satisfaction. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 36(3), 202–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2011.578117. Retrieved August 14, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text:

Chengyan Li, Lili Bao, & Qiang Jiang. (2013). Leadership Styles of Entrepreneurial Women in Eastern China: Characteristics and Differences. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 41(3), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.3.421. Retrieved August 14, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text:

Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. (1998). The relationship between individual personality orientation and executive leadership behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71(2), 99–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1998.tb00666.x

Deluga, R. J. (1990). The Effects of Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez Faire Leadership Characteristics on Subordinate Influencing Behavior. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 11(2), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1102‗6. Retrieved August 14, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true & db=aph & AN=7301086 & site=ehost-live

Doherty, A., & Danylchuk, K. (1996). Transformational and transactional leadership in interuniversity athletics management. Journal of Sport Management, 10(3), 292-309. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.10.3.292

Foels, R., Driskell, J., Mullen, B. & Salas, E. (2000). The effects of democratic leadership on group member satisfaction: An integration. Small Group Research, 31, 676-701.

Gastil, John (1994). A definition and illustration of democratic leadership. Human Relations, 47, 953.

Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Behavior in organizations. Prentice Hall.

Haeseler, L. (2013). Leadership Styles of Service Professionals Aiding Women of Abuse: Enhancing Service Delivery. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15433714.2013.750550. Retrieved August 14, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85221358

Hearda-Rapp, A. (1998). Hearda-Rapp, A. (1998). The Power of Informal Leadership: Women Leaders in the Civil Rights Movement. Sociological Focus, 31(4), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.1998.10571113. Retrieved August 14, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text:

Jung, D. & Sosik, J. (2006). Who are the spellbinders? Identifying personal attributes of charismatic leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12, 12-26.

Khan, M. J., Aslam, N., & Riaz, M. N. (2012). Leadership Styles as Predictors of Innovative Work Behavior. Pakistan Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 18–23. Retrieved August 14, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text:

Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership redefined: an evocative context for teacher leadership. School Leadership & Management, 23(4), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243032000150953

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created "social climates." The Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1939.9713366

Lind, B., & Stepan-Norris, J. (2011). The Relationality of Movements: Movement and Countermovement Resource, Infrastructure, and Leadership in the Los Angeles Tenants’ Rights Mobilization, 1976-1979. American Journal of Sociology, 116(5), 1564–1609. https://doi.org/10.1086/657507

Ruggieri, S., & Abbate, C. S. (2013). Leadership Style, Self-Sacrifice, and Team Identification. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 41(7), 1171–1178. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.7.1171

Saha, S. K. (1979). Contingency Theories of Leadership: A Study. Human Relations, 32(4), 313. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677903200404. Retrieved August 14, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text:

Sudbrack, B. & Trombley, S. (2007). Lost: A survival guide to leadership theory. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 251-263, 266-268.

Wehman, P. & Goldstein, M. (1977). Effects of different leadership styles on individual risk-taking in groups. Human Relations, 30, 249–259.

Wodak, R., Kwon, W., & Clarke, I. (2011). ‘Getting people on board’: Discursive leadership for consensus building in team meetings. Discourse & Society, 22(5), 592–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511405410. Retrieved August 14, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text: